Re: [fossil-users] Unusual timeline
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Matt Welland estifo...@gmail.com wrote: I find that forks are surprisingly disconcerting to casual users of fossil. A common scenario is that a fork occurs and then developers spin their wheels in silly I already committed this! But I did and update and I don't see your changes! cycles. As Richard has pointed out wise developers who maintain situational awareness by checking the timeline regularly are only trivially affected by forks. FWIW, a bit of trivia: back in 2008 (IIRC) we had an accidental, unnoticed fork or two, one of them being me and Richard a few seconds apart from one another. IIRC (possibly incorrectly) that was what spawned autosync. I have a suggestion that might make life easier for the casual fossil user. On detection of a fork it would be nice if fossil prompted the user to either automerge or autobranch. In automerge fossil would do a merge and if there are no conflicts automatically commit with a comment automerged fork. In autobranch fossil would simply name one side of the fork. Based on other recent discussions, i think you'll find that commit before testing fails a basic sanity check for the majority of the devs. For autobranch, you basically mean what it does now, except that it would pick a new name for the forked one, right? (e.g. username-autofork, or whatever) Note also that if you detect a fork it is important to do a fossil update trunk (assuming the fork is on the trunk) before merging. Otherwise your current node may not be the latest. Update without the branch name seems to not try to move to the latest node. i think(?) that might be because that once the potential fork is detected, sync is stopped. The manual update would not care about a local pending fork. It should work doing fossil update without a branch name, though, i think. -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do. -- Bigby Wolf ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] Unusual timeline
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline?p=92c2c1e5e18b19c5b05ea5684feb0bbeeb6670fd What's going on here? Everything is tagged trunk, yet [b4a53ba45f] is displayed as if on a branch. Was there a fork or something? - -- Andy Goth | andrew.m.goth/at/gmail/dot/com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTvdUYAAoJELtYwrrr47Y4i1kH/RpWjlJEKTL8uSrPy37I6r8a U4mXIbS5CEFu5lLuMS/4R69V9v5xV5+UoTAR6rziCXj2m9oeGxZQAH3Zhu1U5LCB BKqkBqk1WcfzgELqdXnWEqcLgfTmpOfUC388n75vWrmQHSIOzdKmFHKk8M3/giFX etQJTuqAujsgS03/4Vz/a3DEtfe5SiNoEGl15HNKXuFnIH0UfaeGquwR622+atsT 22kjPdxvCpVPnUrMNeOqtEfljp5CcsxxwcXTmelY5m1zxJT+W2Lu7P5y1sd2L9Yn nj5UR7blgJ3T1cnUHioSrvVSU8cbEf8F0KuIRcTlb3uF+cu+iBrew3HM5JJoyq4= =H1a/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Unusual timeline
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Andy Goth andrew.m.g...@gmail.com wrote: http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline?p=92c2c1e5e18b19c5b05ea5684feb0bbeeb6670fd What's going on here? Everything is tagged trunk, yet [b4a53ba45f] is displayed as if on a branch. Was there a fork or something? The only difference I can see is that that commit is marked closed, so I suspect that's why it is considered a branch. If closed were removed from it it'd probably be on the main trunk chart, but ... I'm really just guessing. SDR ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Unusual timeline
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Andy Goth andrew.m.g...@gmail.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline?p=92c2c1e5e18b19c5b05ea5684feb0bbeeb6670fd What's going on here? Everything is tagged trunk, yet [b4a53ba45f] is displayed as if on a branch. Was there a fork or something? There was an accidental fork, apparently. That can happen if somebody has autosync disabled (perhaps because they are working while off network). It can also happen in a race condition if two people try to commit at nearly the same time, but that does not seem likely in this case since the commits were widely separated in time. Forks, while unusual in fossil, do happen. And they are easy to fix, as Jan seems to have done. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Unusual timeline
Thus said Andy Goth on Wed, 09 Jul 2014 18:49:45 -0500: What's going on here? Everything is tagged trunk, yet [b4a53ba45f] is displayed as if on a branch. Was there a fork or something? As Richard already explained it was a fork. For a good explanation of a fork (which is really just like a branch but usually not intentional, but sometimes it might be), see: http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/branching.wiki Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 400053be1b43 ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
